Eminent Domain for private enterpriseFollow

Ok. First you lead off with an assumption, which you cannot support. Secondly, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about which party is "better" for workers, but I happen to disagree with you. Dems do *seem* to be more supportive of workers rights issues, but in many cases, this is not a good thing in the long run. Promoting policies to increase wages seems great at first, but businesses will *have* to react to that. Raising the wages of workers does not decrease other costs for running a business. That difference has to be made up somewhere, and that's usually going to be in the form of layoffs for the very workers you tried to help (or inflation of consumer good prices, which is fine for those who were affected by the wage increases, but makes everyone else poorer).

It's not as simple as just giving people higher salaries.



Ok. Then name one. I'm betting you can't.




Sure. But that doesn't contradict anything I said. Over the long term profits are tied to expansion of the business, and expansion includes hiring of labor. But that assumes that the "price" for the labor is accurate to the value being generated by that labor. If my business finds itself in a situation where my labor costs are producing less then they are worth, then I can certainly increase my profits by cutting my labor.

But you're arguing on specific case against the overall trend. So for one year, I can measure a record increase in profits by trimming labor, but if I want to increase profits overall, I have to start expansind, and that meand hiring more labor.

Look at it another way. If I can produce and sell the same number of widgets while employing 800 workers that I can produce employing 1000 workers, then trimming my labor costs by 200 workers will increase my profits, right? But that case *only* exists if I'm already employing more laborers then I actually need to run my business. I'm overpaying. I can choose to do that but then I'm going to steadily lose money. My competition will make more proit per widget then I do, and I'll eventually be run out of business (and all my workers will become unemployed instead of just 200).

Now in an ideal world, I'd like to expand my operation to give that 200 laborers something to do that generates as much profit per worker that the first 800 do. However, remember what I said. Profits allow for expansion, which drives a need for more labor. I must have that profits *before* I can start that cycle. It doesn't work the other way around. The "correct" solution is to lay off the extra 200 workers, thus maximizing my profit per widget. I then use those profits a few years down the line to expand my widget making plant, then I can hire those 200 laborers. Thyus, not only am I now hiring the full 1000 workers, but I'm making the same profits per worker and profit per widget produced as I was whe I had 800 workers. Even better, I'm now making 25% more widgets, so my *total* profits are 25% higher, meaning that I can afford to expand my business again that much faster (and hire even more workers down the line).

Doing it the Democrat way is certainly better for those 200 workders in the short term. But it screws them in the long term. Jobs get more scarce. Businesses bottom lines get thinner and they have to seek alternatives. The typical Dem response to this is to "protect" those jobs, but this just drives companies to seek labor elsewhere (like outsourcing to other countries with cheaper labor and less stringent labor laws).

IMO, the Dem approach is extremely shortsighted and doesn't really help labor in the long term.




If you're refering to "trickle down economics", then you are vastly oversimplifying the issue. Certainly a broad economic approach that only recognizes supply side ideologies doesn't work. But neither does one looking only at demand side. Arguing that trickle down doesn't work because it doesn't work in all cases and all situations 100% of the time is amazingly misleading. The basic concept, that money retained by businesses in the form of profits "trickles down" to employees is completely sound. The flaw to trickle down economics does not lie there. No one denies that this process does in fact occur (except for people who just spout off a "trickle down doesn't work" rhetoric without actually knowing anything aabout it). The flaw to trickle down theory is that it makes no allowance for the unemployed. Since only those employed gain benefits from it, it will fail to ensure that profits alone will ensure economic security. But that's a completely different issue and topic.



First off, you've got it slightly wrong. It's not that rich people "save" more then they spend. It's that rich people spend less then they earn. And just to clarify it even more, people who spend less then they earn will end up being rich (it is a mathmatical certinty). People *become* rich by having good spending habits, not the other way around.

Secondly, "saving" is a misnomer. Wealthy people don't just toss their money into a savings account, under their matresses, or in a big vault like Richy Rich. They invest their money. Those investments go towards those expansions of business I talked about earlier. They provide the money that you use when you take out a car or home loan. They provide the money and capital that new businesses use to start up. And yes, they get a return on that as well.

Thirdly, spending is not the biggest stimulous of an econoy. It is *a* stimulous, and at any given point it may be the biggest, but it's ultimately just one component of an economy. You can't spend money unless there's something to spend it on, right? Thus, for every dollar that every person spends in the economy, an equal amount of effort must be "spent" providing goods and services. That's all coming from those "evil" corporations. Cut off their profits and the range and quantity of goods availavle decreases over time.

It's far more correct to say that consumer spending and the supply of goods and services should be as much in balance as possible. If there's more money available to spend on goods/services, then the cost of those good/services goes down, and the profits go down, and the value of labor goes down, and people have to lose jobs. If there's less money available to spend on goods/services, then the costs of those good/services go up, causing inflation potentially. The ideal is to balance them as close as possible. This is why blanket statements like "trickle down doesn't work" or "demand side spending is flawed" are themselves wrong. Both represent two sides of the equations. Both are needed at different times to keep the forces of supply and demand in balance.


Again. This is an incredibly complex topic. You do it a grave disservice by just declaring corporations to be "evil" (especially for the reasons you stated). Corporations (and businesses in general) are copletely neutral. They have a simple and direct goal: To earn profits for their ownders/investors. Whether those goals invovle good or bad is mostly determined by how we create our business and labor laws. If we create them with an understanding of the goals of business and how market forces will cause business to react to those laws, then we can construct sane laws that protect workers and alow businesses to profit. If we construct them specifically to "help workers" or "punish those evil big businesses", then we are likely going to miss the obvious and inevitable consequences of those laws, and end up hurting ourselves more down the line.

Awww... Thundra cared enough to post saying he doesn't like me.

Normally this is where I'd offer to flame your son and you could tell me how much you don't care but why even bother when we both know how it'll play out?

Is that a noun or a verb?

Well, Shadow, I agreed with you right until you started blaming this administration... The courts are becoming our greatest weakness now. In fact, I would wager that most conservatives are quite opposed to this. Even Rush Limbaugh was up in arms over this weeks ago.
-------------------------------------------------------

the supreme court interpets the law. they od not decide if it is fair or not. their hands are tied. the bill passed by THIS ADDMINISTRAITION made it LAW. the courts are totally powerless to do anything but decide weather the action was legal or not.

taking private land to further economic progress is now LEGAL in every state in this country.
-------------------------------------
Let me ask you this. Explain to me exactly how a corporation that got some extra money from a tax cut is going to make more profits out of it *without* resulting in the creation of more jobs?
------------------------------------

ahh, logic from the blind followers. simple. they will OUTSOURCE those jobs to countries that have no laws to prohibit them from EXPLOITING the work force. keep the tax cuts, fire a bunch of whineing americans, make a bunch of money. welcome to business in the 21st century.

a perfect example, the cruise line industry. Disney crusie lines along with every other cruise line, regester their operations in other countries to AVIOD tax laws here in the U.S., but still maintain their company here in the U.S.

Disney pays the people working on their ships about 1/4 of what minimum wage is here in the U.S. they work them 15 hours a day, 7 days a week under contract, 4 months on, 2 months off.

this is what EVERY bussineess WOULD DO here in the U.S. if they could. our government allows this to happen. our government allows private american corperations to avoid taxes, exploit human beings, and make a huge profit by doing bussiness here in the U.S.

what if our governmnet made any company doing bussiness here in the U.S. pay U.S. wages, and force U.S. labor laws on them reguardless of there their workers are located, or they dont do bussiness here in the U.S.? think GM trucks would still be made in mexico? think Ford trucks would be made in canada? japaneese cars would cost so much, american cars whould sell like hotcakes.

it would END outsourcing. it would END the exploitation of human labor over seas. it would turn this country from a slow slide from a user society to a manufacturing sociaety again.

it will not happen because it wouldnt be as profitable, and big bussiness lobbiest will spend MILLIONS to make sure no such bill EVER sees the light of day.

you think alowing states to take land for economic progress was done in the name of the people? it was done to allow big bussines to side step the safty nets people have on their property. it was done INSPITE of the people, not for the people.

the moral majority working for you.

you idiots voted for this crap. done start whinning now. the republican party is about supporting big bussiness. they dont give a crap about people or property any further than how they can make a profit from it.

religion? rofl, just the train they used to get you IDIOTS to vote for BIG BUSSINESS.

the states have the right to sell off protected land at will. they have the right to sell YOUR PROPERTY at will also for "economic progress". in other words, they have the right to TAKE your property to facilitate the profits of big bussiness.

and their is nothing you can do about it, becuase you stupid idiots VOTED for it.

you get it yet? Government was designed to PROTECT people. weather it be from outside this country or from inside. the republican party wants to eliminate YOUR PROTECTION to facilitate the profits of big bussiness.

and they did it with propaganda. by opening their little box of fear. they took away some of your civil liberties with the patriot act. they took away the protection of your private property by passing bills and telling you they were oh-tay. they slammed any opposition by calling nay sayers unpatriotic, or weak and winmp, ie the democratic party.

you swollowed it hook line and sinker. now your stuff is only your stuff as long as someone with alot of money doesnt want it.

WE DESERVE THIS, because WE LET IT HAPPEN.

our stupidity and ignorance has led us here.

like your neibhorhood? better hope some condo developer doesnt think its a prime location.....

Yes, so be sure to tell Justice Kennedy how you feel about it. He's the one that crossed over and voted with the libruls.

Yeah. I pine for my long ago days as a monster flamer

You'd think that after reading the boards for so many years now you'd be able to comprehend them as well.



I never said you used to be a monster flamer. You're the kid that sits there while bullies taunt them and just takes it, agreeing with everything they call him until they get worn out or bored and leave him alone.

That's not what I call flaming, it's more... Taking it like a *****.

Huh. So your "insults" completely fail to get me riled up and somehow that's my fault?

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I bet if you came up with something good I'd get upset. Try it.

Well, you sure showed me. As I recover from your attacks, I can only hope we do this again soon.

Finally, you understand!

Sure.

roflcopter